Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Aug 18;17(8):e0273198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273198

Single amino-acid mutation in a Drosoph ila melanogaster ribosomal protein: An insight in uL11 transcriptional activity

Héloïse Grunchec 1,, Jérôme Deraze 1,, Delphine Dardalhon-Cuménal 1, Valérie Ribeiro 1, Anne Coléno-Costes 1, Karine Dias 2, Sébastien Bloyer 3, Emmanuèle Mouchel-Vielh 1, Frédérique Peronnet 1,‡,*, Hélène Thomassin 1,‡,*
Editor: Barbara Jennings4
PMCID: PMC9387862  PMID: 35981051

Abstract

The ribosomal protein uL11 is located at the basis of the ribosome P-stalk and plays a paramount role in translational efficiency. In addition, no mutant for uL11 is available suggesting that this gene is haplo-insufficient as many other Ribosomal Protein Genes (RPGs). We have previously shown that overexpression of Drosophila melanogaster uL11 enhances the transcription of many RPGs and Ribosomal Biogenesis genes (RiBis) suggesting that uL11 might globally regulate the level of translation through its transcriptional activity. Moreover, uL11 trimethylated on lysine 3 (uL11K3me3) interacts with the chromodomain of the Enhancer of Polycomb and Trithorax Corto, and both proteins co-localize with RNA Polymerase II at many sites on polytene chromosomes. These data have led to the hypothesis that the N-terminal end of uL11, and more particularly the trimethylation of lysine 3, supports the extra-ribosomal activity of uL11 in transcription. To address this question, we mutated the lysine 3 codon using a CRISPR/Cas9 strategy and obtained several lysine 3 mutants. We describe here the first mutants of D. melanogaster uL11. Unexpectedly, the uL11K3A mutant, in which the lysine 3 codon is replaced by an alanine, displays a genuine Minute phenotype known to be characteristic of RPG deletions (longer development, low fertility, high lethality, thin and short bristles) whereas the uL11K3Y mutant, in which the lysine 3 codon is replaced by a tyrosine, is unaffected. In agreement, the rate of translation decreases in uL11K3A but not in uL11K3Y. Co-immunoprecipitation experiments show that the interaction between uL11 and the Corto chromodomain is impaired by both mutations. However, Histone Association Assays indicate that the mutant proteins still bind chromatin. RNA-seq analyses from wing imaginal discs show that Corto represses RPG expression whereas very few genes are deregulated in uL11 mutants. We propose that Corto, by repressing RPG expression, ensures that all ribosomal proteins are present at the correct stoichiometry, and that uL11 fine-tunes its transcriptional regulation of RPGs.

Introduction

Drosophila Minute mutants have been studied for almost a hundred years. They were first described for displaying thin and short bristles, i.e. Minute bristles, together with prolonged development [1]. All Minute mutations are dominant and lethal when homozygous. The vast majority of them strongly impact viability and fertility, to the point that some could only be identified through transient aneuploidy experiments. Minute loci have been characterized over time and all but a few of Minute genes have been identified as Ribosomal Protein Genes (RPGs) [2, 3].

A substantial part of RPs’ contribution to cell metabolism has been attributed to their ability to alter ribosome behaviour with consequences on protein synthesis. However, some free RPs are also known for a long time to carry regulatory activities, consequently termed “extra-ribosomal functions” (for a review see [4]). This is notably the case for RPL12, aka uL11 following the new nomenclature proposed to avoid confusion between species [5]. Indeed uL11 was shown in C. elegans and mammals to bind its own messenger RNA and inhibit its splicing, leading to aberrant transcripts targeted for degradation through nonsense-mediated mRNA decay [6, 7]. Furthermore, in S. cerevisiae, uL11 was shown to be required for the transcription of a subset of PHO pathway genes that are inducible under low phosphate conditions [8].

Drosophila melanogaster uL11 is encoded by a unique gene (uL11/RPL12/ CG3195/FBgn0034968) located on the right arm of chromosome 2 at cytogenetic position 60B7. Three transcripts corresponding to uL11 encode the same 165 amino acid protein. uL11 expression is ubiquitous and described as “very high” to “extremely high” in all tissues, developmental stages, and cell lines [9]. Two deletions encompassing the whole uL11 area have been described [i.e. Df(2R)bwVDe2LPxKR and Df(2R)Exel6081]. However, it was recently proposed that the cytological borders of the first one did not cover the uL11 region (FBrf0230794) and the second one was lost (FBrf0206661). Thus, there is no evidence that aneuploidy at this locus can be viable, and the locus is indeed described as haplolethal [4, 10, 11]. Another RPG (eL39/RpL39), and several essential genes (eEF5, yki) are found in the vicinity of uL11 [11, 12]. For this reason, the genes responsible for this haplolethality remain uncertain. However, it is likely that uL11 contributes to this phenotype as no classical allele has been described yet. Moreover, we observed that ubiquitous RNAi-mediated uL11 inactivation is lethal during the first larval instar.

The uL11 protein forms, together with the ribosomal protein uL10, the basis of the P-stalk, a lateral protuberance of the 60S subunit which is a critical element of the ribosomal GTPase-associated center known to interact with factors involved in translational elongation and termination [13]. The uL11 protein consists of two domains connected with a hinge, a C-terminal globular domain anchored to a conserved region of the 28S rRNA and a flexible N-terminal domain. The N-terminal domain interacts with several translation factors, notably eEF2 [13, 14]. As a consequence, uL11 has been shown to play an important role at many steps of the translational cycle. In yeast, a deficiency for uL11 prevents the release of the ribosome associated protein Tif6, which is the last maturation step before the 60S subunit becomes functional and uL11 deficient ribosomes display a decrease in translational fidelity [15]. In cultured human cystic fibrosis bronchial epithelial cells, depletion of uL11 reduces the rate of translational initiation and elongation [16].

We have recently established that Drosophila melanogaster uL11 interacts with the chromodomain of the epigenetic co-factor Corto [17]. Chromodomains recognize trimethylated lysines on histones, and the interaction between uL11 and Corto was shown to require the trimethylation of uL11 on lysine 3 (uL11K3me3). Trimethylation of uL11 lysine 3 is very well conserved, existing also in S. cerevisiae, S. pombe and A. thaliana [1820]. In D. melanogaster, uL11 and Corto bind chromatin, colocalize at many sites on polytene chromosomes and are recruited on the hsp70 gene upon transcriptional activation [17, 21]. Overexpression of uL11 as well as that of the Corto chromodomain induces the transcription of many RPGs and Ribosomal Biogenesis genes (RiBis) suggesting that uL11 could globally regulate the level of translation through its transcriptional activity. Thus, our previous study led us to hypothesize that uL11K3me3 was involved in transcriptional regulation.

To test this hypothesis, we designed a CRISPR/Cas9 strategy for mutating the uL11 lysine 3 codon. In this study we have replaced the lysine 3 codon of uL11 with codons for amino acids that are not subject to methylation; alanine (uL11K3A) and tyrosine (uL11K3Y). The uL11K3A mutant, but surprisingly not the uL11K3Y mutant, displays Minute phenotypes i.e. longer development, low fertility, high lethality and thin bristles. As expected, uL11K3A and uL11K3Y proteins do not interact with the Corto chromodomain anymore. However, they still bind chromatin. RNA-seq analyses from wing imaginal discs show that Corto represses RPG expression whereas very few genes are deregulated in uL11 mutants.

Materials and methods

Drosophila genetics

Drosophila melanogaster stocks and crosses were kept on standard yeast corn-meal medium (7.5% yeast, 9% cornmeal, 1% agar, 0.27% Moldex) at 25°C. For all experiments, crosses were set up with similar densities to prevent confounding effects of overcrowding. w1118 was used as the control strain. The corto420 and cortoL1 loss-of-function alleles were described in [17].

Strategy of CRISPR/Cas9 mutagenesis

The pU6-chiRNA:sgRNA plasmid was obtained by incorporating the sgRNA sequence (obtained by annealing phos-gRNA-F and phos-gRNA-R, S1 Table) into pU6-BbsI-chiRNA (Addgene plasmid # 45946) [22, 23] following the protocol provided on https://flycrispr.org/protocols/. Sequence was confirmed using the T3 universal primer.

A 123 nucleotide-long single-stranded oligodeoxynucleotide (ssODN) carrying the lysine (AAA) to alanine (GCC) substitution flanked by two 60 nucleotide-long homology arms was used as a template for Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) (synthetized by Integrated DNA Technologies Inc) (S1 Table). The uL11 region of the recipient line vasa-Cas9 (BL-51324) was sequenced in order to respect possible polymorphisms. To prevent base pairing with the sgRNA, the ssODN was designed to be homologous to the PAM carrying strand.

Fly transgenesis

Two hundred vasa-Cas9 embryos were injected with a mixture containing 100 ng/μL pU6-chiRNA:sgRNA and 100 ng/μL ssODN (BestGene Inc.). Transformant G0 flies (48 females and 44 males) were individually crossed to w1118; In(2LR)Gla, wgGla1/SM5 flies (Gla/SM5). Among them, only 18 males and 11 females were fertile. Curly wing G1 siblings were individually crossed to Gla/SM5 flies. Once the G2 progeny born, G1 founding flies were harvested, genomic DNA extracted, and LNA allele-specific genotyping performed as described below. 294 G1 individuals were genotyped to detect the presence of uL11 mutant alleles. Curly wing G2 offspring of G1 flies carrying a mutant allele of uL11 were then crossed with each other to establish mutant balanced strains. In order to eliminate potential unspecific mutations, ten balanced mutant females from the offspring were then individually backcrossed with w1118 males and genotyped by High Resolution Melting Analysis (HRMA) after laying eggs. uL11 mutant females were kept and the whole procedure was repeated seven times.

Genomic DNA extraction

Genomic DNA was extracted by crushing single flies in 100 μL SB buffer (10 mM Tris pH 8.0, 1 mM EDTA, 25 mM NaCl, 200 μg/μL Proteinase K), followed by 30 min incubation at 37°C. DNA was further purified by standard phenol-chloroform extraction followed by ethanol precipitation.

Genotyping by locked nucleic acid allele-specific qPCR

Forward allele-specific primers with 3’ end matching either wild-type (LNAWT) or mutated 3rd codon (LNAK3A) of uL11 (AAA or GCC, respectively) and a Locked Nucleic Acid (LNA) nucleotide [24] at the second position of the mismatch codon were used in combination with a reverse primer (CRISPR1_R) to amplify a 219 nucleotide fragment (S1 Table). 25 μL reactions were set to contain 5 to 15 ng of genomic DNA, 0.5 μM forward and reverse primers, 0.4 nM dNTP, 0.75 μL SYBR green (Diagenode), and 2.5 units of DreamTaq polymerase (Thermo Fisher Scientific) in TMAC buffer (67 mM Tris pH 8.8, 6.7 mM MgCl2, 16.6 mM ammonium sulfate, 0.5 mM tetramethylammonium chloride, 0.17 mg/mL BSA) [25]. 0.5 ng of plasmid containing the uL11 coding region in which the AAA lysine 3 codon was replaced by GCC was used as positive control. qPCR reactions were carried out in a CFX96 system (BioRad) [95°C 3 min; 40 cycles (95°C 20 s, 64°C 20 s, 72°C 30 s)]. To confirm the presence of the mutated allele, a 1.5 kb region centred on the lysine 3 codon was sequenced.

High Resolution Melting Analysis (HRMA)

Genomic DNA was analysed by HRMA as described in [26]. Briefly, oligonucleotides uL11-HRMA-F and uL11-HRMA-R (S1 Table) were used to amplify a 173 bp region centred on the uL11 lysine 3 codon. PCR reactions were performed with SsoFastTM EvaGreen® Supermix (Bio-Rad) in 20 μL reactions containing 2 to 15 ng genomic DNA and 0.5 μM each oligonucleotide. Cycles were carried out in a CFX96 system (BioRad) [98°C 3 min; 40 cycles (98°C 2 s, 57.3°C 15 s)]. Thermal melting profiles were obtained in the same device by increasing temperature from 75 to 95°C using a temperature increment of 0.2°C. They were normalized as described by [27].

uL11K3me3 antibodies

Polyclonal anti-uL11K3me3 antibodies were generated in rabbit using a peptide corresponding to the first 16 amino acids of uL11 with methylated lysine 3 [PPK(me3)FDPTEVKLVYLRC] (Eurogentec). The serum was first loaded on a uL11K3me3 peptide affinity column which allowed to retain anti-uL11K3me3 and anti-uL11 antibodies. After elution, they were separated by passage through an unmethylated uL11 peptide affinity column. Specificity of the antibodies was checked by dot blot (S1 Fig).

Proteins were extracted from third instar larvae in RIPA buffer (150 mM sodium chloride, 1% NP40, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate, 0.1% SDS, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8,0) supplemented with phosphatase and protease inhibitors (Roche). 30 μg of proteins were separated by SDS-PAGE electrophoresis on 15% acrylamide gels. Western blots were performed according to standard protocols using either goat anti-uL11 (SantaCruz sc82359, 1/1000), rabbit anti-uL11K3me3 (1/6000), or mouse anti-α-tubulin (DSHB E7c, 1/2500) as primary antibodies. Anti-goat (Jackson ImmunoResearch; 705035147; 1/10000), anti-rabbit (1/20000) or anti-mouse (Sigma NA931; 1/20000) were used as secondary antibodies.

Analysis of mutant life history traits

uL11 wild-type or mutant chromosomes were balanced with CyO,Dfd-EYFP (from strain BL-8578) or SM5. About 100 females and 60 males were placed in laying cages on agarose plates (2% agarose, 5% vinegar, neutral red) supplemented with yeast. To measure embryonic lethality, 100 embryos were collected from each laying cage, transferred on new agarose plates and emerging first instar larvae were counted. To measure larval and pupal lethality, 100 embryos were collected and transferred into yeast cornmeal medium tubes at 25°C. Pupae and adults were then counted. Three independent experiments were performed and results were pooled. To measure developmental time, first instar larvae were collected and transferred into yeast cornmeal medium tubes at 25°C (50 to 100 larvae per tube). Vials were checked from 9 days after egg laying until no more adults emerged. Statistical significance was assessed by Chi-2 tests.

Measure of bristle length

Adult bodies free of wings, legs and heads were aligned on agar cups. Images were captured using a Leica Model MZ FLIII microscope equipped with a Leica Model DC480 camera. Scutellar bristles were measured using the ImageJ segmented line tool. Normality was checked by Shapiro-Wilk tests and homogeneity of variances by F tests. Student’s t-tests were then set taking into account homo- or heteroscedasticity of variances.

Measure of wings

Adult flies were kept in 70% ethanol for 48 h and transferred into PBS glycerol (1:1 v/v). Wings were dissected and mounted on glass slides, dorsal side up, in Hoyer’s medium. Slides were scanned with a Hamamatsu Nanozoomer Digital Slide scanner, running the Nanozoomer software with a 20x objective and an 8 bit camera. Wing pictures were separately exported into TIF format using NDP.view and the 5 x lens. Measurements of wing length were performed as described in [28].

Plasmids

uL11 was amplified from w1118 embryonic cDNAs and subcloned into pENTR/D-TOPO (Invitrogen) [17]. pENTR-uL11K3A and pENTR-uL11K3Y were obtained by site-directed mutagenesis using the oligonucleotides described in [17] and in S1 Table, respectively. The cDNAs were then transferred either into the pAWM or the pAWH Gateway® Drosophila vectors allowing expression of fusion proteins with a C-terminal Myc or HA tag under the control of an actin promoter in S2 cells.

Cell transfection

S2 cells were cultured at 25°C in Schneider’s Drosophila medium supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum and 100 units/mL of penicillin and streptomycin (Life technologies). To obtain cells permanently expressing uL11-HA, uL11K3A-HA or uL11K3Y-HA, a mix containing a 5:1 molar ratio of the pA-uL11-HA, pA-uL11K3A-HA or pA-uL11K3Y-HA expression vector and the selection plasmid pCoBlast (Invitrogen) was prepared. 106 cells were then transfected with 2 μg of DNA using Effecten® transfection reagent (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions at a 1:10 DNA/Effecten® ratio. Selection was performed by addition of 10 μg/mL of blasticidin after 48 h. After initial selection, stable cell lines were cultured in presence of 2 μg/mL of blasticidin. For transient expression, 106 cells were transfected with 2 μg of either pA-uL11-Myc, pA-uL11K3A-Myc or pA-uL11K3Y-Myc, and 2 μg of pA-FLAG-CortoCD [17] using Effecten® at a 1:10 DNA/Effecten® ratio.

Polysome fractionation

Cells were harvested at 50% confluence and washed in Schneider medium at room temperature to remove the fetal bovine serum. They were then resuspended in ice-cold lysis buffer (20 mM Hepes pH 7.5, 250 mM KCl, 10 mM MgCl2, 5 mM DTT, 1 mM EDTA, 0.5% NP-40) supplemented with EDTA-free protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche Diagnostics) and 40 U/mL Ribolock RNAse Inhibitor (ThermoFisher). For EDTA treatment, the same buffer adjusted to 25 mM EDTA and without MgCl2 was used. After centrifugation at 500 g for 5 min to pellet nuclei, supernatants were layered onto 10 to 50% sucrose gradients in polyribosome buffer (20 mM Hepes pH 7.5, 250 mM KCl, 20 mM MgCl2, 2 mM DTT), supplemented with EDTA-free protease inhibitor cocktail and 40 U/mL Ribolock RNAse Inhibitor. Gradients were centrifuged at 39,000 rpm for 165 min at 4°C in a Beckman SW41-Ti rotor. Optical density at 254 nm was monitored using a density gradient fractionator (Teledyne Isco, Lincoln, NE).

Western blots were performed according to standard protocols using mouse anti-HA (Sigma F2411; 1/1000) as primary antibodies and anti-mouse (Sigma NA931; 1/20000) as secondary antibodies. They were revealed using the Supersignal™ West Pico PLUS Chemiluminescent Substrate (Thermo Scientific) as described by the supplier.

Puromycin assays

Puromycin assays were adapted from [29] with the following modifications: 20 third instar larvae were turned inside-out and incubated for 1 h at 25°C under gentle rotation in Schneider’s medium supplemented or not with 10 mg/mL cycloheximide (Sigma). Puromycin (antpr1, InvivoGen) was then added at a final concentration of 0.28 mg/mL and incubation was continued for 2 h. Total proteins were extracted in a buffer containing 30 mM Hepes pH 7.4, 0.1% NP40, 150 mM NaCl, 2 mM Mg(OAc)2 supplemented with phosphatase and protease inhibitors (Roche) (adapted from [30]). 60 μg of protein extracts were deposited on a 12% acrylamide gel.

Western blot were performed according to standard protocols using mouse anti-puromycin (Kerafast, 3RH11; 1/500) or mouse anti-H3 (Diagenode; C15200011; 1/1000) as primary antibodies, and anti-mouse (Sigma; NA931; 1/20000) as secondary antibodies and revealed using the Supersignal™ West Pico PLUS Chemiluminescent Substrate (Thermo Scientific). Puromycin and H3 signals were measured using ImageJ. The puromycin signal (signal in the samples treated with CHX and puromycin minus signal in the untreated sample) was normalized towards the H3 signal. Statistical significance was assessed by Student’s t-tests.

Co-immunoprecipitation

S2 cells transiently transfected with either pA-uL11-Myc, pA-uL11K3A-Myc or pA-uL11K3Y-Myc and pA-FLAG-CortoCD [17] were harvested after 48 h and washed in Schneider medium at room temperature. Co-immunoprecipitations were performed as described in [31] without fixation. 30 μl of Protein G coated Bio-Adembeads (Ademtech) were incubated with either 1 μg of mouse monoclonal anti-FLAG antibody (F3165, Sigma), or goat anti-HA antibody as mock (sc-805, Santa Cruz Biotechnology).

Western blot were performed according to standard protocols using mouse anti-Myc (Abcam ab9132; 1/10000) or anti-FLAG (Sigma F3165; 1/5000) as primary antibodies and anti-mouse (Sigma NA931; 1/20000) as secondary antibodies and were revealed using the Supersignal™ West Pico PLUS Chemiluminescent Substrate (Thermo Scientific).

Histone association assays

S2 cells permanently expressing uL11-HA, uL11K3A-HA or uL11K3Y-HA were cross-linked with formaldehyde and chromatin was prepared as described [32]. One μL of chromatin was kept for the input and immunoprecipitation was performed on the remaining chromatin using anti-H3 antibodies (mouse monoclonal, C15200011, Diagenode; 3 μg/IP). Chromatin-associated proteins were detected by Western blot: H3 was detected using anti-H3 antibodies (1/5000), uL11-HA proteins using anti-HA antibodies (Sigma F2411; 1/1000), and histone H2B using anti-histone H2B antibodies (Abcam ab1790; 1/2000); anti-mouse (Sigma NA931; 1/20000) or anti-rabbit (A0545, Sigma; 1/20000) were used as secondary antibodies. Western blots were revealed with a ChemiDoc MP Imaging System (Bio-Rad).

RNA-seq, bioinformatic analyses and RT-qPCR

Wing imaginal discs of third instar female larvae (one disc per larva) were dissected by batches of 50 in ice-cold PBS and frozen in liquid nitrogen. 150 discs (three batches) were pooled. Total RNAs were extracted using RNeasy kit (Qiagen).

Preparation of library and RNA-seq from corto420/cortoL1 wing imaginal discs were performed as described in [17]. For uL11 wing imaginal discs, library preparation was performed using the TruSeq® Stranded mRNA Library Prep kit (Illumina). Library preparation and Illumina sequencing were performed at the École Normale Supérieure genomics core facility (Paris, France) on a NextSeq 500 (Illumina). Three replicates were sequenced for each genotype. 75 bp single reads were trimmed using FastQC (Galaxy version 0.72). Reads were then aligned against the D. melanogaster genome (dm6 genome assembly, release 6.30) using STAR (Galaxy Version 2.6.0b-2). Reads were counted using FeatureCounts (Galaxy Version 1.6.0.6). Differential analysis was performed using DESeq2 version 1.32.0. Gene ontology was analysed with DAVID (https://david.abcc.ncifcrf.gov/home.jsp). The RNA-Seq gene expression data and raw fastq files are available at the GEO repository (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/info/seq.html) under accession number GSE181926.

RT-qPCR were performed on wing imaginal disc cDNAs as described in [28]. Expression levels were quantified with the Pfaffl method [33] and normalized to the geometric mean of two reference genes, GAPDH and Spt6, the expression of which did not vary in the mutants. Sequences of primer pairs are listed in S1 Table.

Results

CRISPR/Cas9 editing of the uL11 lysine 3 codon

uL11 is located within a cluster of highly transcribed genes, many of which are also essential (including eEF5, RpL39/eL39, yki…) [11, 12]. This cluster is indeed part of the 1.6% haplolethal regions of the euchromatic Drosophila genome [3]. Furthermore, uL11 is bordered by two small intergenic sequences (465 and 620 bp, respectively) that might contain regulatory elements (Fig 1). Thus, the insertion of a selection cassette within this locus could disrupt gene expression and impede viability. We therefore chose to edit the uL11 lysine 3 to alanine (K3A) by a single step CRISPR/Cas9 mediated HDR using a single-stranded oligodeoxynucleotide donor template (ssODN) [23, 34].

Fig 1. Genomic organization of the uL11 locus.

Fig 1

A–Genomic locus of the 2R chromosome containing the uL11 gene (coordinates in grey). B–Sequence of the uL11K3A and uL11K3Y mutants.

To recover the successful HDR events, we set up a molecular screening protocol based on an allele specific amplification strategy [34]. Discriminating power was increased by the substitution of the penultimate nucleotide of the screening primers with a locked nucleic acid (LNA) (S2 Fig). The presence of a single LNA sufficiently improved specificity to allow us analyzing pools of flies for the presence of a single allele copy (S2 Fig). 294 G1 individuals were tested for the presence of a mutated allele carrying the K3A substitution. Mixtures of genomic DNA from pools of 4 to 5 individuals were prepared and the uL11 locus was amplified with either the lysine codon (LNA-WT) or the alanine codon (LNA-K3A) matching primer. While most genomic DNA mixtures displayed amplification kinetics similar to the one of the negative control, six of them exhibited faster amplification (ΔCt between 2 and 7). We thus repeated the experiment on individual genomic DNAs from 6 positive pools. Ten genomic DNA originating from three independent G0 founding flies, two males and one female, exhibited quicker amplification with the LNA-K3A primer than with the control primer (ΔCt>5) (S2 Fig). Sequencing the uL11 locus confirmed that these flies were heterozygous for the recombinant allele uL11K3A. Three uL11K3A mutants, uL11K3A-12, uL11K3A-43 and uL11K3A-6, coming from three different founders, were obtained (S3 Fig). Unless specified, analyses were performed with uL11K3A-43.

To detect other mutations potentially resulting from non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) events, we also performed HRMA of a qPCR amplicon centred on the uL11 lysine 3 codon. Denaturation kinetics of these PCR products were analyzed individually for the 294 G1 flies. Among them, 36 denaturation profiles differed from the wild-type control. Sequencing of the amplicons confirmed the presence of a mutation at the uL11 locus in each of these 36 samples. Consistently, the 10 uL11K3A mutants identified with the allele-specific amplification strategy were also recovered by HRMA. Seven additional alleles were thus identified, that all carry a mutation impairing the lysine 3 codon: a single (K3Y) or double (P2LK3E, P2QK3R) amino acid substitutions, a single (ΔK3) or double (ΔK3F4) amino acid deletion, and an insertion of 2 or a deletion of 4 nucleotides (F+2 and F-4, respectively) (S3 Fig). Preliminary observations revealed that the mutants could be dispatched into two groups depending on the severity of their phenotypes. The first group contains the K3A, ΔK3, ΔK3F4, F+2 and F-4 alleles, and the second group the K3Y, P2QK3R and P2LK3E alleles. We choose to focus on two representative alleles, K3A and K3Y (Fig 1 and S2 and S3 Figs). They were introduced into the same controlled genetic background (w1118) and expression of the uL11 proteins was confirmed by western blot (Fig 2). As expected, uL11K3me3 was not detected in the homozygous K3A and K3Y mutants.

Fig 2. uL11K3me3 is undetectable in homozygous uL11 mutants.

Fig 2

Tubulin was used as a loading control. Whereas uL11 was present in hetero- and homozygous mutants, as revealed by the pan-uL11 antibody, uL11K3me3 was undetectable in the two homozygous mutants. *: unspecific signal.

Lethality and developmental delay of uL11 mutants

We first examined the lethality of uL11 homozygous mutants. Whereas we obtained many homozygous uL11K3Y adults, very few uL11K3A homozygotes emerged and almost all of them were males. To follow the lethality of uL11K3A mutants during development, we compared the number of embryos, larvae and pupae to the one of the w1118 control. During embryogenesis, they did not display more lethality than the w1118 control with the exception of uL11K3A/uL11+ whose lethality is slightly higher (Chi2 test, p<0.05) (Fig 3). By contrast, during larval life, lethality was very high for uL11K3A/uL11+, and uL11K3A/uL11K3A (Chi2 test, p<0.001), but did not increase neither for uL11K3Y/uL11+ nor for uL11K3Y/uL11K3Y larvae. We did not observe any lethality during the pupal life for all genotypes. Similarly, developmental time from egg deposition to adult emergence was considerably extended for uL11K3A/uL11+ (up to 48 h) and uL11K3A/uL11K3A (up to 96 h) and for a second uL11K3A mutant, uL11K3A-12, either heterozygotes or homozygotes (S4 Fig). However, the developmental time of uL11K3Y/uL11K3Y flies was unaffected (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Life history traits of uL11 mutants.

Fig 3

A–Lethality of uL11 mutants. uL11X/CyO, Dfd-EYFP flies were crossed between them and 300 embryos per genotype were transferred on new medium (uL11X: uL11+, uL11K3A or uL11K3Y, as indicated). Left: percentage of uL11X/uL11X and uL11X/CyO,Dfd-EYFP first instar larvae emerged from 300 embryos (CyO,Dfd-EYFP homozygous embryos did not emerge); Right: percentage of uL11X/uL11X and uL11X/CyO,Dfd-EYFP pupae coming from the emerged first instar larvae (numbers of starting embryos and larvae are indicated). uL11X/ uL11X individuals: dark colour; uL11X/CyO,Dfd-EYFP individuals: light colour; blue: uL11+, burgundy: uL11K3A, orange: uL11K3Y. B–Developmental time of uL11 mutants. The percentage of flies emerged from day 8 to 15 is shown. The total number of emerged flies is indicated. Solid lines: heterozygous flies; dotted line: homozygous flies; blue: uL11+, burgundy: uL11K3A, orange: uL11K3Y. Chi2 test: *** p-value < 0.001; ** p-value < 0.01; * p-value < 0.05; only significant comparisons are shown.

To summarize, the K3Y mutation had no effect on these life history traits whereas lethality and developmental time were increased both in heterozygous and homozygous K3A mutants, which characterized this allele as dominant.

Bristle and wing size of the uL11 mutants

Minute mutants have thinner and shorter bristles as compared to wild-type flies. As it also seemed to be the case for uL11K3A mutants either heterozygotes or homozygotes (Fig 4 and S4 Fig), we measured the anterior and posterior scutellar bristles of uL11K3A and uL11K3Y mutants. In males, scutellar bristles were indeed significantly shorter in heterozygous and homozygous uL11K3A mutants as compared to control flies but unaffected in homozygous uL11K3Y mutants (Fig 4). In females, we also observed shorter bristles in heterozygous and homozygous uL11K3A mutants while bristles of uL11K3Y homozygous mutants were only slightly affected (S5 Fig). Furthermore, heterozygous and homozygous uL11K3A males have shorter wings while those of uL11K3Y homozygous males were unaffected (Fig 4). Similarly, heterozygous uL11K3A females exhibited shorter wings whereas wings of homozygous uL11K3Y females were unaffected (S5 Fig).

Fig 4. Analysis of bristles and wings in male uL11 mutants.

Fig 4

A–Thorax of a wild-type male. Anterior and posterior scutellar bristles are colorized. B–Thorax of a uL11K3A/uL11K3A male. Anterior and posterior scutellar bristles are colorized. They look thinner and shorter that those of the wild-type male shown in A. C–Length of anterior scutellar bristles of wild-type males (blue; n = 45), uL11K3A/uL11+ and uL11K3A/uL11K3A (dark and light burgundy, n = 55 and n = 24, respectively) and uL11K3Y/uL11K3Y (orange, n = 51). D–Length of posterior scutellar bristles of wild-type males (blue; n = 44), uL11K3A/uL11+ and uL11K3A/uL11K3A (dark and light burgundy, n = 53 and n = 13, respectively) and uL11K3Y/uL11K3Y (orange, n = 50). E–Wing length of uL11 wild-type males (blue; n = 28), uL11K3A/uL11+ and uL11K3A/uL11K3A (dark and light burgundy, n = 30 and n = 15, respectively) and uL11K3Y/uL11K3Y (orange, n = 30). t-tests: *** p-value < 0.001; ns: non significant.

These results confirmed that uL11K3A exhibits characteristics of a dominant allele and showed that the severity of the phenotypes depended on the mutation. The K3A mutation was highly detrimental while the K3Y mutation had almost no impact on the size of scuttelar bristles and wings. Minute mutants are known to be poorly fertile and viable, to exhibit developmental delay and have shorter and thinner bristles, all phenotypes that we observed in uL11K3A mutant flies. Moreover, Minute alleles are dominant which is also the case of the uL11K3A allele. All these data characterized the uL11K3A mutant as a Minute mutant.

Impact of the uL11 mutations on translation

The strategic location of uL11 protein at the basis of the P-stalk in the GTPase-associated center of the ribosome suggests that its mutation might have a detrimental impact on translation. To test this hypothesis, we assessed the level of global translation in the uL11 mutants. In order to label neo-synthesized proteins, third instar wild-type or mutant larvae were incubated with puromycin. Puromycin intake was normalized to histone H3 levels. A significant decrease in global translation level was observed in uL11K3A homozygous larvae as compared to wild-type larvae, whereas it was unmodified in uL11K3Y homozygous, in agreement with the absence of Minute phenotypes (Fig 5). uL11K3A heterozygous larvae, which however present Minute phenotypes, did not exhibit any decrease in the global translation level. On the one hand, the phenotypes of uL11K3A/ uL11+ flies are not as severe as those of uL11K3A/ uL11K3A, and a low decrease in global translation might be undetectable in our assays. On the other hand, the amount of protein synthesis is known to vary depending on the proliferative activity of the tissue or even depending on the cell type [35]. For example, it is visibly impacted by heterozygous RPG mutations in clonal analyses of cell competition in Drosophila larvae wing imaginal discs [36, 37]. A low decrease of protein synthesis in larval proliferative tissues might be averaged in our global analyses.

Fig 5. Translational rate of uL11 mutants.

Fig 5

A–Western blot showing puromycin incorporation in larvae of the two mutants as compared to wild-type larvae, in absence (-) or presence (+) of cycloheximide (CHX), an inhibitor of translation. Puromycin incorporation was revealed with an anti-puromycin antibody. Histone H3, revealed with an anti-panH3 antibody, was used as loading control. MWM: molecular weight marker. B–Quantification of the puromycin signal in the 4 genotypes without (-) or with (+) CHX treatment. The puromycin signal was normalized to the H3 signal. Student’s t-tests were performed to compare puromycin incorporation in mutant and wild-type larvae. * p-value < 0.05; ns: non significant. C, C’, D, D’–Polysome fractionation: cytoplasmic lysates (C, D) and EDTA-treated lysates (C’, D’) from S2 cells expressing uL11-HA (C, C’) or uL11K3A-HA (D, D’) were fractionated by centrifugation onto a sucrose gradient. Optical density at 254 nm was monitored during fractionation (top panels). The peaks observed in the gradient correspond to the different ribosomal complexes: 40S subunit, 60S subunit, 80S monosome, polysomes. Proteins extracted from fractions were analyzed by Western blotting with anti-HA antibody (lower panels). A vertical line indicates that different wells from the same gel were juxtaposed in the image for clarity. Images are representative for three obtained replicates.

We then asked whether the uL11K3A protein would retain the ability to associate with translating ribosomes. We generated stable cell lines expressing either uL11K3A-HA or uL11-HA under the control of the Actin promoter. Cytoplasmic extracts were purified from both genotypes and lysates were loaded onto sucrose gradients for fractionation. As a control, an extract of each genotype was supplemented with 25 mM EDTA, a concentration that disrupts the interaction between ribosomal subunits and mRNA. The resulting fractions were analyzed by western blot to reveal the presence of uL11K3A-HA or uL11-HA (Fig 5). These experiments revealed an enrichment of uL11-HA in the 60S fraction (large ribosomal subunits), in the 80S fraction (ribosomes) and in polysomes, but not in the 40S fraction (small ribosomal subunit), as expected. The same pattern was observed for uL11K3A-HA. Furthermore, EDTA treatment triggered the relocation of uL11-HA and uL11K3A-HA towards lighter fractions, confirming that the sedimentation profiles truly resulted from their association with polysomes (Fig 5). All these data showed that uL11K3A-HA was efficiently incorporated into translating ribosomes. Nevertheless, the decrease in puromycin incorporation observed in uL11K3A mutants suggests that the yield of translation might be altered.

Interaction of uL11 mutant proteins with Corto and chromatin

Overexpression of uL11 as well as overexpression of the Corto chromodomain enhances the transcription of RPGs and RiBi genes [17]. As both proteins interact together and bind chromatin, we hypothesized that their transcriptional activity were linked. We have previously shown that the trimethylation of uL11 on lysine 3 mediates the interaction between uL11 and the chromodomain of the epigenetic cofactor Corto (CortoCD). We first assayed the physical interactions between CortoCD and the mutant uL11 proteins. To do this, we co-transfected Drosophila S2 cells with pA-FLAG-CortoCD and either pA-uL11K3A-Myc or pA-uL11K3Y-Myc. The FLAG-tagged chromodomain was immunoprecipitated using anti-FLAG antibodies. Contrarily to uL11-Myc that co-immunoprecipitated with FLAG-CortoCD, neither uL11K3A-Myc nor uL11K3Y-Myc co-immunoprecipitated with it, corroborating our previous results showing that uL11K3 trimethylation mediates the interaction with CortoCD (Fig 6).

Fig 6. uL11 but neither uL11K3A nor uL11K3Y co-immunoprecipitates with the chromodomain of Corto.

Fig 6

S2 cells were co-transfected with plasmids expressing FLAG-CortoCD and uL11-Myc, uL11K3A-Myc or uL11K3Y-Myc. Immunoprecipitations were performed with anti-FLAG antibodies (α-FLAG) or anti-HA antibodies (mock) and Western blot revealed using α-FLAG or anti-Myc antibodies (α-Myc). Spnt: supernatant, IP: immunoprecipitation. A - FLAG-CortoCD co-immunoprecipitated with uL11-Myc (arrow). B - FLAG-CortoCD did not co-immunoprecipitate with uL11K3A-Myc. C - FLAG-CortoCD did not co-immunoprecipitate with uL11K3Y-Myc.

We next asked whether the uL11 mutant proteins were still able to bind chromatin. To address this question, we performed Histone Association Assays (HAA) [32]. Chromatin was extracted from S2 cells permanently expressing uL11-HA, uL11K3A-HA or uL11K3Y-HA and purified by immunoprecipitation with an anti-Histone H3 antibody. As expected, Histone H2B was co-immunoprecipitated with H3. Not only the wild type protein, but also uL11K3A and uL11K3Y mutant proteins were found associated with chromatin suggesting that their ability to modulate transcription might be kept (Fig 7).

Fig 7. uL11K3A and uL11K3Y bind chromatin.

Fig 7

Chromatin was extracted from S2 cells stably expressing uL11-HA, uL11K3A-HA or uL11K3Y-HA and immunoprecipitated with anti-H3 antibodies. Inputs and immunoprecipitated materials were loaded on gels for electrophoresis. Western blots were revealed using anti-H3 (A), anti-H2B (B) or anti-HA (C). The arrows show H3, H2B and the uL11-HA proteins, respectively.

Transcriptomic analysis of uL11 and corto mutants

We then performed a transcriptomic analysis from wing imaginal discs of third instar larvae either trans-heterozygous for two loss-of-function alleles of corto (cortoL1/corto420) or homozygous for the uL11 alleles (uL11K3A or uL11K3Y). The w1118 line was used as reference. Total numbers of reads are shown in S2 Table. Differential analyses were performed to obtain adjusted p-values associated to expression fold-changes for the three genotypes as compared to the reference. Taken a log2(fold-change) < -0.50 or > 0.50 and an adjusted p-value < 0.05, we found 458 down-regulated and 481 up-regulated genes in cortoL1/corto420 mutants (S3 Table). Strikingly, 241 of these deregulated genes were also deregulated in wing imaginal discs overexpressing the Corto chromodomain [21] and all of them were deregulated in the same direction. Notably, 55.5% of the genes corresponding to the GO Cellular Component term “cytoplasmic translation” (66/119) were up-regulated in cortoL1/corto420 mutants and most of them (54/66) were also up-regulated in wing imaginal discs overexpressing the Corto chromodomain (S4 Table). These results indicated that CortoCD overexpression behaved as a dominant negative allele and confirmed that Corto down-regulates RPGs, directly or indirectly.

Using the same cutoffs, we found 143 down-regulated and 251 up-regulated genes in the uL11K3A mutant. Down-regulated genes were enriched in GO terms related to transcription factor activity and sequence-specific DNA binding whereas up-regulated ones were enriched in GO terms glutathione metabolic process, telomere maintenance and DNA recombination (S4 Table). Only few genes were deregulated in uL11K3Y (39 down-regulated and 45 up-regulated). Up-regulated genes were enriched in the category “glutathione metabolism” (KEGG pathway, Benjamini adjusted p-value 5.90E-03) as for uL11K3A. Fifty-two deregulated genes were shared with uL11K3A (S3 Table). Most of them were deregulated in the same direction (29 genes up-regulated and 17 genes down-regulated). Hence, contrarily to uL11 overexpression [17], RPGs and RiBi genes were not deregulated in uL11 mutants. Interestingly, among the 251 genes up-regulated in uL11K3A, 82 were up-regulated in other RPG mutants [38, 39] (S3 Table).

Very few deregulated genes were shared between the uL11 mutants and corto (69 shared by uL11K3A and corto, 29 shared by uL11K3Y and corto, 14 shared by the three genotypes) (Fig 8). We chose some genes to analyze their expression by RT-qPCR in the three mutants: CG13516, one of the few genes deregulated in the three genotypes and the most down-regulated gene in uL11K3Y, Hsp67Bc, encoding a small heat-shock protein involved in cold stress tolerance [40], which is up-regulated in cortoL1/corto420 and uL11K3Y, and GstE6, encoding a Glutathione S-transferase up-regulated in uL11K3A and uL11K3Y. The RNA-seq data were confirmed by RT-qPCR for these three genes in the three mutants, except for Hsp67Bc for which the increase in cortoL1/corto420 was not significant (Fig 8).

Fig 8. RNA-seq analyses of corto and uL11 mutants.

Fig 8

A—Venn diagrams showing the intersection of genes deregulated (up- and down-regulated) in cortoL1/corto420, uL11K3A and uL11K3Y (cutoffs: adjusted p-value < 0.05; log2(fold-change) < -0.5 ou > 0.5). See S3 Table for detailed gene lists. The three genes validated by RT-qPCR are indicated. B—RT-qPCR analysis of CG13516, Hsp67Bc and GstE6 expression in cortoL1/corto420, uL11K3A and uL11K3Y wing imaginal discs. Expressions were normalized on the geometric mean of GAPDH and Spt6. Mean of three replicates. Error bars correspond to standard deviations. * p-value < 0.05; ** p-value < 0.01; *** p-value < 0.001. C–Snapshots showing the mapping of reads on CG13516, Hsp67Bc and GstE6 in the reference line w1118, corto420/cortoL1, uL11K3A and uL11K3Y wing imaginal discs.

Discussion

We have previously shown that ribosomal protein uL11 interacts with the chromodomain of the Drosophila Enhancer of Trithorax and Polycomb Corto when tri-methylated on lysine 3 (uL11K3me3) [17]. uL11, Corto and RNA Polymerase II co-localize at many sites on polytene chromosomes and overexpression of uL11 induces the transcription of many RPGs and RiBi genes. These data have confirmed that Drosophila uL11 is involved in transcription [21] and further suggest that the lysine 3 supports this extra-ribosomal activity. In the aim of testing this hypothesis, we generated mutant alleles of uL11 using the CRISPR/Cas9 technology. By introducing a template to promote Homology-Directed Repair, we obtained a mutant in which the lysine was replaced by an alanine. However, we also obtained mutants harbouring indels probably obtained by Non-Homologous End Joining. Strikingly, the lysine 3 codon of uL11 was either deleted or substituted by another amino acid in all recovered mutants. Hence, it seems that a strong selection pressure occurs to maintain the uL11 ORF, consistent with the haplo-insufficiency of this RPG.

A single amino acid substitution generates a Minute phenotype

The uL11K3A allele is almost totally lethal at the homozygous state. The few escapers are only males that hatch with a developmental delay larger than two days as compared to wild-type flies raised in the same conditions. Interestingly, uL11K3A heterozygotes are also delayed but slightly less (about one day). In addition, uL11K3A heterozygous females are frequently sterile making it necessary to carry out crosses of heterozygous uL11K3A males with wild-type females and to genotype the offspring in order to maintain the stock. Hence, the uL11K3A allele clearly appears dominant, which is also visible for other phenotypes, such as the shorter and thinner macrochaetes. Reduced viability, notably of females, delayed development, thin bristles and dominance are signatures of the Minute mutations that have been shown to correspond to RPG deletions [2]. The associated phenotypes are thought to reflect a defect in RPs’ stoichiometry resulting in a decreased capacity for protein synthesis. In accordance, tissues that are the most dependent on translation are likely to be the most affected. For instance, high ribosome biogenesis level is suggested to be necessary for the maintenance of germinal stem cells in the Drosophila ovarium, which could explain the reduced fertility of Minute females [41, 42]. Similarly, macrochaetes are described to require a very high amount of protein synthesis over a short developmental period [2]. Unexpectedly, replacement of a single lysine by an alanine in the N-terminal tail of uL11 induces a Minute phenotype. The global level of translation in this mutant is decreased although the mutated protein can be efficiently incorporated into translating ribosomes. However, translation speed or accuracy might be altered. Whatever the exact origin, the Minute phenotype of the uL11K3A mutant might be due to an alteration in translation. In yeast, uL11 loss-of-function has been shown to halve the speed of translation and to cause increased amino acid mis-incorporation and termination codon readthrough [15]. Another possibility would be that uL11K3A ribosomes display altered affinity for specific mRNA, as has been described for ribosomes lacking RPL38/eL38 in mice [43].

Surprisingly, the uL11K3Y mutant does not display any Minute phenotype. The N-terminal extension of uL11 is supposed to be unstructured as neither the first 6 nor the first 9 amino acids were resolved in the structure of the D. melanogaster and S. cerevisiae 80S ribosome, respectively [14, 44]. This region is composed of hydrophilic amino acids and could thus be use as a platform for protein interactions. Addition of methyl groups on lysines, even if it has no effect on the overall charge of the residue, increases its hydrophobicity. Trimethylation of uL11 lysine 3 might thus modulate the activity of the N-terminal tail [45]. However, in S. cerevisiae and pombe, deletion of Rkm2, the methyltransferase responsible for uL11 lysine 3 methylation has little impact on ribosome assembly and function or on cell viability [19, 46] suggesting that the methylation of lysine 3 is not crucial for basic translational activity. In the uL11K3Y mutant, the tyrosine, a hydrophobic residue, might mimic the effect of methyl groups. If this is the case, in-depth comparison of translation between uL11K3Y and uL11K3A mutants, including sequencing of polysomal mRNA, should permit to elucidate the role of the uL11 N-terminal tail methylation in translation.

Extra-ribosomal activities of uL11

Regulation of translational capacity might be indirect and due to extra-ribosomal activities of free RPs, notably in transcriptional regulation (for a recent review see [47]). Overexpression of uL11 increases the transcription of many RPGs and RiBi genes [21]. Although it cannot be ruled out that artificial overexpression induces a non-specific response, it is striking that overexpression of RPGs is also observed in loss-of-function corto mutants that encode a direct partner of uL11. Corto, by repressing RPG expression, could ensure that all ribosomal proteins are present at the correct stoichiometry, thus preventing ribosomal stress. As the uL11K3Y mutant displays neither Minute phenotypes nor a global decrease in translation, we assumed that solely its transcriptional activity would be affected. However, only very few genes are deregulated in this mutant questioning the existence of a proper transcriptional activity for uL11. To reconcile these findings, it is tempting to speculate that uL11, by physically interacting with Corto on chromatin, fine-tunes its transcriptional regulation of RPGs. In a context where uL11 no longer interacts with Corto, i.e. in the uL11 lysine 3 mutants, the expression of these genes does not vary. Going with that model, if other ribosomal proteins were now out of stoichiometry (for example in another Minute mutant), one would expect that the extra uL11 would accumulate, bind Corto, and repress the expression of other RPG genes to restore balance.

Alternatively, the absence of obvious phenotypes and the fact that only few genes are deregulated in uL11K3Y mutant could mean that the transcriptional activity of uL11 is triggered under stress conditions which is the case for many extra-ribosomal functions of RPs. For example, in S. cerevisiae uL11 has been shown to regulate the PHO pathway in low phosphate conditions potentially at the transcriptional level [8]. It would thus be interesting to test whether the Drosophila uL11 mutants, and especially uL11K3Y, display an altered resistance to stresses that affect ribosome biogenesis, for instance by raising them with specific food diets.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Specificity of the anti-uL11K3me3 antibody.

0.2 (left) and 0.05 μg (right) of each peptide were deposited on a nitrocellulose membrane. Membranes were then incubated with the indicated primary antibodies. Secondary antibodies were as described in Materials and Methods. Peptides: unmethylated uL11, uL11K10me3, uL11K3A, uL11K3me2, and uL11K3me3 peptides were synthesized at the proteomic platform of the Institute of Biology Paris Seine; H3K4me3 and H3K9me3 peptides were from Diagenode, C16000003 and C160000056, respectively. Antibodies: PI: rabbit preimmun serum; α-uL11: 1/14000, described in Materials and Methods; α-uL11K3me3: 1/10000, described in Materials and Methods; α-H3K4me3: 1/1000, Diagenode C15310003; α-H3K9me3: 1/1000, Diagenode C15100146. Secondary antibodies: 1/10000.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Molecular screening for the uL11K3A allele.

A–Rationale for discriminative PCR. Purple bases correspond to the target codon. Red bases stand for locked nucleic acids (LNA). The LNAWT primer ended with the lysine AAA codon of the wild-type uL11 gene whereas the LNAK3A primer ended with the alanine GCC codon corresponding to the desired mutation. B–qPCRs were performed with the LNAK3A primer matching the uL11K3A allele. Red curve: plasmid carrying the uL11K3A allele as positive control. Black curve: genomic DNA from a wild-type fly. Blue curves: pools of up to 5 different genomic DNAs from candidate G1 flies considered to be positive. Green curves: pools of up to 5 different genomic DNAs from candidate G1 flies considered to be negative. C–The same qPCRs were performed on individual genomic DNAs from the pools that were previously found to be positive for the uL11K3A allele. Several individuals wearing the mutation were thus identified (blue curves). D–High Resolution Melting Analysis (HMRA) of uL11 mutants. Melting profile of the uL11 amplicons from genomic DNAs of G1 flies. Melting peaks flatter and broader than the reference (black) revealed the presence of two different amplicons, indicating that the tested DNA contained a mutation at the uL11 locus. Melting curves were normalized according to the method described by [27]. RFU: Relative Fluorescence Unit.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Sequence of the uL11 alleles of G0 flies.

Founder G0 flies were named after their gender (M, male; F, female) and the order of their emergence. Each allele was recovered in several descendants of the same founders. The uL11K3A and uL11ΔK3 alleles were found in the progeny of three and two different founders, respectively. Substitution alleles were named to reflect the amino acid change in the uL11 protein, following the amino acid one letter code. The bottom two alleles were named after the reading frameshift they introduce in the uL11 gene. The wild-type uL11 sequence is provided as reference. The start and the lysine 3 codons of uL11 are highlighted in grey. Mutants F-4 and F+2 introduce a +2 reading frame shift that puts the uL11 CDS in frame with an ATG codon located in the 5’UTR. A protein with a 24 amino acid extension might then be produced.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Analysis of the uL11K3A-12 mutant.

A—From left to right: thorax of a wild-type female, a uL11K3A-12/uL11+ heterozygous female, and a uL11K3A-12/uL11K3A-12 homozygous female. Anterior and posterior scutellar bristles are colorized. B–Developmental time of the uL11K3A-12 mutant as compared to uL11K3A-43—the mutant presented in the main text. The percentage of flies emerged from day 8 to 15 is shown. The total number of flies emerged is indicated in the legend. Solid lines: heterozygous flies; dotted line: homozygous flies; blue: uL11+, burgundy: uL11K3-43, pink: uL11K3A-12.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Analysis of bristles and wings in female uL11 mutants.

A–Length of anterior scutellar bristles of wild-type females (blue; n = 54), uL11K3A/uL11+ (burgundy, n = 33) and uL11K3Y/uL11K3Y (orange, n = 25). B–Length of posterior scutellar bristles of wild-type males (blue; n = 51), uL11K3A/uL11+ (burgundy, n = 36) and uL11K3Y/uL11K3Y (orange, n = 50). C–Wing size of uL11 wild-type females (blue; n = 29), uL11K3A/uL11+ (burgundy, n = 30) and uL11K3Y/uL11K3Y (orange, n = 25). t-tests: *** p-value < 0.001; ** p-value < 0.01; * p-value < 0.05; ns: non significant.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Oligonucleotides used in this study.

In primers LNA-WT and LNA-K3A, uppercase nucleotides correspond to the LNA bases. In primers pho-sgRNA_F and pho-sgRNA_R, uppercase nucleotides correspond to the floating sequences used for cloning. The bold guanosine was introduced to increase efficiency of the U6 promoter. In the ssODN, the complementary ATG and alanine codon sequences are bold and in uppercases, the PAM sequence corresponding to the single guide RNA is in bold.

(PDF)

S2 Table. RNA-seq of wing imaginal discs (GEO accession number GSE181926).

(PDF)

S3 Table. Genes deregulated in at least one of the three genotypes (cortoL1 /corto420, uL11K3A, uL11K3Y).

Green: Up-regulated genes, log2 fold-change > 0.5, adjusted p-value < 5.E-02. Orange: Down-regulated genes, log2 fold-change < -0.5, adjusted p-value < 5.E-02. Blue: Genes up-regulated in other RPG mutants [35, 36].

(PDF)

S4 Table. Ontology of genes deregulated in cortoL1/corto420 and uL11K3A mutants.

CC: Cellular Component; BP: Biological Process; MF: Molecular Function.

(PDF)

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank the members of the team for stimulating discussions, Jean-Michel Gibert for critical reading of the manuscript, Immane R’Kiki for technical assistance, Naïra Naouar from the ARTbio Bioinformatics platform (IBPS) for the training of HG in NGS analyses, the Bloomington Stock Center for fly strains.

Data Availability

The RNA-Seq gene expression data and raw fastq files are available at the GEO repository under accession number GSE181926 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE181926).

Funding Statement

FP: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Sorbonne University, Fondation ARC grant (PJA20171206407) HG: Doctoral fellowship from the MESRI and Fondation ARC (ARCDOC42020020001381) JD: Doctoral fellowship from the MESRI and Fondation pour la Recherche médicale (FDT20160435164) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Brehme KS. A Study of the Effect on Development of ‘Minute’ Mutations in Drosophila Melanogaster. Genetics. 1939;24(2):131–61. doi: 10.1093/genetics/24.2.131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Marygold SJ, Roote J, Reuter G, Lambertsson A, Ashburner M, Millburn GH, et al. The ribosomal protein genes and Minute loci of Drosophila melanogaster. Genome Biol. 2007;8(10):R216. doi: 10.1186/gb-2007-8-10-r216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cook RK, Christensen SJ, Deal JA, Coburn RA, Deal ME, Gresens JM, et al. The generation of chromosomal deletions to provide extensive coverage and subdivision of the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Genome Biol. 2012;13(3):R21. doi: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-3-r21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bhavsar RB, Makley LN, Tsonis PA. The other lives of ribosomal proteins. Hum Genomics. 2010;4(5):327–44. doi: 10.1186/1479-7364-4-5-327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ban N, Beckmann R, Cate JHD, Dinman JD, Dragon F, Ellis SR, et al. A new system for naming ribosomal proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2014;24:165–9. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2014.01.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cuccurese M, Russo G, Russo A, Pietropaolo C. Alternative splicing and nonsense-mediated mRNA decay regulate mammalian ribosomal gene expression. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(18):5965–77. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki905 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mitrovich QM, Anderson P. Unproductively spliced ribosomal protein mRNAs are natural targets of mRNA surveillance in C. elegans. Genes Dev. 2000;14(17):2173–84. doi: 10.1101/gad.819900 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tu WYY, Huang YCC, Liu LFF, Chang LHH, Tam MF. Rpl12p affects the transcription of the PHO pathway high-affinity inorganic phosphate transporters and repressible phosphatases. Yeast. 2011;28(6):481–93. doi: 10.1002/yea.1852 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Larkin A, Marygold SJ, Antonazzo G, Attrill H, dos Santos G, Garapati PV, et al. FlyBase: updates to the Drosophila melanogaster knowledge base. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021. Jan 8;49(D1):D899–907. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa1026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lindsley DL, Sandler L, Baker BS, Carpenter AT, Denell RE, Hall JC, et al. Segmental aneuploidy and the genetic gross structure of the Drosophila genome. Genetics. 1972;71(1):157–84. doi: 10.1093/genetics/71.1.157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Huang J, Wu S, Barrera J, Matthews K, Pan D. The Hippo signaling pathway coordinately regulates cell proliferation and apoptosis by inactivating Yorkie, the Drosophila Homolog of YAP. Cell. 2005;122(3):421–34. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Park MH, Nishimura K, Zanelli CF, Valentini SR. Functional significance of eIF5A and its hypusine modification in eukaryotes. Amino Acids. 2010;38(2):491–500. doi: 10.1007/s00726-009-0408-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gonzalo P, Reboud JP. The puzzling lateral flexible stalk of the ribosome. Biol Cell. 2003. May;95(3–4):179–93. doi: 10.1016/s0248-4900(03)00034-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Anger AM, Armache JP, Berninghausen O, Habeck M, Subklewe M, Wilson DN, et al. Structures of the human and Drosophila 80 S ribosome. Nature. 2013. May;497(7447):80–5. doi: 10.1038/nature12104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wawiórka L, Molestak E, Szajwaj M, Michalec-Wawiórka B, Boguszewska A, Borkiewicz L, et al. Functional analysis of the uL11 protein impact on translational machinery. Cell Cycle. 2016;15(8):1060–72. doi: 10.1080/15384101.2016.1154245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Oliver KE, Rauscher R, Mijnders M, Wang W, Wolpert MJ, Maya J, et al. Slowing ribosome velocity restores folding and function of mutant CFTR. J Clin Invest. 2019. Oct 28;129(12):5236–53. doi: 10.1172/JCI124282 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Coléno-Costes A, Jang SM, de Vanssay A, Rougeot J, Bouceba T, Randsholt NB, et al. New partners in regulation of gene expression: the enhancer of trithorax and polycomb corto interacts with methylated ribosomal protein l12 via its chromodomain. PLoS Genet. 2012;8(10):e1003006. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Carroll AJ, Heazlewood JL, Ito J, Millar AH. Analysis of the Arabidopsis cytosolic ribosome proteome provides detailed insights into its components and their post-translational modification. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2008;7(2):347–69. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M700052-MCP200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sadaie M, Shinmyozu K, Nakayama J ichi. A conserved SET domain methyltransferase, Set11, modifies ribosomal protein Rpl12 in fission yeast. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(11):7185–95. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M709429200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Webb KJ, Laganowsky A, Whitelegge JP, Clarke SG. Identification of Two SET Domain Proteins Required for Methylation of Lysine Residues in Yeast Ribosomal Protein Rpl42ab. J Biol Chem. 2008. Dec;283(51):35561–8. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M806006200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Brogna S, Sato TAA, Rosbash M. Ribosome components are associated with sites of transcription. Mol Cell. 2002;10(4):93–104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gratz SJ, Cummings AM, Nguyen JN, Hamm DC, Donohue LK, Harrison MM, et al. Genome engineering of Drosophila with the CRISPR RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease. Genetics. 2013;194(4):1029–35. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.152710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gratz SJ, Ukken FP, Rubinstein CD, Thiede G, Donohue LK, Cummings AM, et al. Highly Specific and Efficient CRISPR/Cas9-Catalyzed Homology-Directed Repair in Drosophila. Genetics. 2014;196(4):961–71. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.160713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Thomassin H, Kress C, Grange T. MethylQuant: a sensitive method for quantifying methylation of specific cytosines within the genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(21):e168. doi: 10.1093/nar/gnh166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chevet E, Lemaître G, Katinka MD. Low concentrations of tetramethylammonium chloride increase yield and specificity of PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995;23(16):3343–4. doi: 10.1093/nar/23.16.3343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bassett AR, Kong L, Liu JLL. A genome-wide CRISPR library for high-throughput genetic screening in Drosophila cells. J Genet Genomics. 2015;42(6):301–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jgg.2015.03.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wittwer CT, Reed GH, Gundry CN, Vandersteen JG, Pryor RJ. High-resolution genotyping by amplicon melting analysis using LCGreen. Clin Chem. 2003;49(6 Pt 1):853–60. doi: 10.1373/49.6.853 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dardalhon-Cuménal D, Deraze J, Dupont CA, Ribeiro V, Coléno-Costes A, Pouch J, et al. Cyclin G and the Polycomb Repressive complexes PRC1 and PR-DUB cooperate for developmental stability. PLoS Genet. 2018;14(7):e1007498. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zamurrad S, Hatch HAM, Drelon C, Belalcazar HM, Secombe J. A Drosophila Model of Intellectual Disability Caused by Mutations in the Histone Demethylase KDM5. Cell Rep. 2018. Feb;22(9):2359–69. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.02.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Miyoshi K, Okada TN, Siomi H, Siomi MC. Biochemical Analyzes of Endogenous Argonaute Complexes Immunopurified with Anti-Argonaute Monoclonal Antibodies. In: Hobman TC, Duchaine TF, editors. Argonaute Proteins [Internet]. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2011. [cited 2021 May 29]. p. 29–43. (Methods in Molecular Biology; vol. 725). Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-61779-046-1_3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mouchel-Vielh E, Rougeot J, Decoville M, Peronnet F. The MAP kinase ERK and its scaffold protein MP1 interact with the chromatin regulator Corto during Drosophila wing tissue development. BMC Dev Biol. 2011;11:17. doi: 10.1186/1471-213X-11-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ricke RM, Bielinsky AK. Easy detection of chromatin binding proteins by the histone association assay. Biol Proced Online. 2005. Jan;7(1):60–9. doi: 10.1251/bpo106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pfaffl MW. A new mathematical model for relative quantification in real-time RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29(9):e45. doi: 10.1093/nar/29.9.e45 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jérôme Deraze. Epigenetic Control of Ribosome Biogenesis Homeostasis [Internet]. Sorbonne University; 2017. Available from: https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01878354/file/2017PA066342.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Signer RAJ, Magee JA, Salic A, Morrison SJ. Haematopoietic stem cells require a highly regulated protein synthesis rate. Nature. 2014. May 1;509(7498):49–54. doi: 10.1038/nature13035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ji Z, Kiparaki M, Folgado V, Kumar A, Blanco J, Rimesso G, et al. Drosophila RpS12 controls translation, growth, and cell competition through Xrp1. PLoS Genet. 2019;15(12):e1008513. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kiparaki M, Khan C, Folgado-Marco V, Chuen J, Moulos P, Baker NE. The transcription factor Xrp1 orchestrates both reduced translation and cell competition upon defective ribosome assembly or function. eLife. 2022. Feb 18;11:e71705. doi: 10.7554/eLife.71705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kucinski I, Dinan M, Kolahgar G, Piddini E. Chronic activation of JNK JAK/STAT and oxidative stress signalling causes the loser cell status. Nat Commun. 2017. Dec;8(1):136. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00145-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lee CHH, Kiparaki M, Blanco J, Folgado V, Ji Z, Kumar A, et al. A Regulatory Response to Ribosomal Protein Mutations Controls Translation, Growth, and Cell Competition. Dev Cell. 2018;46(6):807. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2018.09.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Malkeyeva D, Kiseleva E, Fedorova S. Small heat shock protein Hsp67Bc plays a significant role in Drosophila melanogaster cold-stress tolerance. J Exp Biol. 2020. Jan 1;jeb.219592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhang Q, Shalaby NA, Buszczak M. Changes in rRNA Transcription Influence Proliferation and Cell Fate Within a Stem Cell Lineage. Science. 2014. Jan 17;343(6168):298–301. doi: 10.1126/science.1246384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sanchez CG, Teixeira FK, Czech B, Preall JB, Zamparini AL, Seifert JRK, et al. Regulation of Ribosome Biogenesis and Protein Synthesis Controls Germline Stem Cell Differentiation. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;18(2):276–90. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2015.11.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Xue S, Tian S, Fujii K, Kladwang W, Das R, Barna M. RNA regulons in Hox 5’ UTRs confer ribosome specificity to gene regulation. Nature. 2015;517(7532):33–8. doi: 10.1038/nature14010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ben-Shem A, de Loubresse NG, Melnikov S, Jenner L, Yusupova G, Yusupov M. The Structure of the Eukaryotic Ribosome at 3.0 Å Resolution. 2011;334:7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Beaver JE, Waters ML. Molecular Recognition of Lys and Arg Methylation. ACS Chem Biol. 2016. Mar 18;11(3):643–53. doi: 10.1021/acschembio.5b00996 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Porras-Yakushi TR, Whitelegge JP, Clarke S. A novel SET domain methyltransferase in yeast: Rkm2-dependent trimethylation of ribosomal protein L12ab at lysine 10. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(47):35835–45. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M606578200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kachaev ZM, Ivashchenko SD, Kozlov EN, Lebedeva LA, Shidlovskii YV. Localization and Functional Roles of Components of the Translation Apparatus in the Eukaryotic Cell Nucleus. Cells. 2021. Nov 19;10(11):3239. doi: 10.3390/cells10113239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Barbara Jennings

22 Apr 2022

PONE-D-22-02062Single amino-acid mutation in a Drosophila melanogaster ribosomal protein: an insight in uL11 transcriptional activityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Peronnet,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 First, I apologise for the extremely long time it has taken to review this paper. I had problems finding willing reviewers. However, I now have one detailed reviewer's report and I have read the paper carefully myself. I generally agree with the comments this reviewer has made and would ask you to address them. However, in point (1) they state  "I would like however to see a second independent K3A line assessed on the major phenotypes (for instance developmental delay and Minute bristles) to rule out genetic background issues (especially since K3Y, or the other double substitutions do not give the same phenotype)". I agree that ruling out genetic background issues is important, however, if no second independent K3A line is available, this could be done by recombining the K3A mutation in to alternative genetic backgrounds using using flanking genetic markers.  Some other minor points:The sentence (final paragraph of the introduction) "We describe here the uL11K3A and uL11K3Y mutants in which the lysine 3 codon of uL11 is replaced by a non-methylable alanine and a tyrosine codon, respectively." is very difficult to follow and should be re-written along the lines of: "In this study we have replaced the lysine 3 codon of uL11 with codons for amino acids that are not subject to methylation; alanine (uL11K3A) and tyrosine (uL11K3Y)."Results, line 2, first paragraph:"uL11 is located within a cluster of highly transcribed genes, many of which are also essential (eIF5A, RpL39/eL39, yki...)" - please rewrite as "uL11 is located within a cluster of highly transcribed genes, many of which are also essential (including eIF5A, RpL39/eL39 and yki)." 

Please include a reference describing the "single step CRISPR/Cas9 mediated HDR using a single-stranded oligodeoxynucleotide donor template (ssODN)" that you based your experimental strategy on at the end of the first paragraph of the Results. 

With respect to the publication criteria, I am happy to confirm that in my opinion, the paper presents the results of original research that has not been reported elsewhere, the experiments, statistics, and other analyses are generally performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail, the article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English, the research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity and that article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability. Generally the conclusions are appropriate, however, there is some scope to make the conclusions from the RNA-seq studies clearer and to propose alternative models to explain the data. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 06 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Barbara Jennings

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work was funded by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Sorbonne University, and by a Fondation ARC grant to FP (PJA20171206407). HG was funded by a doctoral fellowship from the MESRI (Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation) and a 4th year doctoral fellowship from Fondation ARC (ARCDOC42020020001381). JD was funded by a doctoral fellowship from the MESRI and a 4th year doctoral fellowship from the Fondation pour la Recherche médicale (FDT20160435164). This work was supported by the France Génomique national infrastructure, funded as part of the "Investissements d'Avenir" program managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (contract ANR-10-INBS-0009).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“FP: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Sorbonne University, Fondation ARC grant (PJA20171206407)

HG: Doctoral fellowship from the MESRI and Fondation ARC (ARCDOC42020020001381)

JD: Doctoral fellowship from the MESRI and Fondation pour la Recherche médicale (FDT20160435164)

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions

6. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01878354/file/2017PA066342.pdf

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review PlosOne Manuscript PONE-D-22-02062

In this manuscript, Grunchec et al. report for the first time the generation and characterization of two new mutant lines for the ribosomal protein uL11/ Rpl12. This factor located at the basis of the ribosome P-Stalk plays an essential role in translation efficiency. A previous work from the same group demonstrated that uL11 displays extra-ribosomal activities and is able to bind chromatin and enhance the transcription of others Ribosomal Protein Genes (RPGs) and Ribosomal Biogenesis genes (RiBis) when over-expressed. Moreover, they found that uL11 is trimethylated on lysine 3 allowing its interaction with the chromodomain of the Enhancer of Polycomb and Trithorax Corto. These findings let the authors postulate that the transcriptional activity of uL11 is controlled by this Lysine 3 methylation. To test this hypothesis, they generated in the present study, point mutations of this amino acid using a CRISPR/Cas9 strategy. They obtained several mutant lines and focused their work on 2 mutations, namely K3A (lysine to alanine) and K3Y (lysine to tyrosine).

The first part of the manuscript describes in great details the making and the validation of the mutants. The experiments are well designed and perfectly controlled, and show clearly that the lines obtained carry the right mutations.

The second part focuses on the phenotypic characterization of these two mutants. Both are found to have lost their ability to interact with Corto. Interestingly, the K3A lines behaves as a typical Minute mutant. Surprisingly, K3Y does not display such phenotype.

In order to explain this discrepancy, they next ask whether these mutations impact on the translational and transcriptional activities of uL11. They show that both are well associated with the ribosome. However, while K3A mutant display an alteration of the yield of translation, K3Y behaves as Wild Type.

Finally, the author performed a transcriptomic analysis from third instar wing discs of Corto loss of function mutants and both uL11 Lysine 3 mutants. Cross comparison of RNA expression profiles show that very few deregulated genes were shared between the 3 conditions.

Overall, the experiments performed in this manuscript are thoughtful and well implemented. Before I can fully support publication, there are just a few key experiments I would like to see to back the claims of the authors, or a few points that need to be rephrased or discussed.

1) The results obtained in the mutant validation and the phenotypic description part of the manuscript are convincing and very detailed. I would like however to see a second independent K3A line assessed on the major phenotypes (for instance developmental delay and Minute bristles) to rule out genetic background issues (especially since K3Y, or the other double substitutions do not give the same phenotype).

2) The K3A mutants display a clear translational defect (Minute phenotype and lower translation rate). The K3A is clearly dominant in all assays performed by the authors, and it is clearly stated as such in the text. However, how can the authors explain that they did not see any change in translation in the heterozygous K3A/uL11 but only in the homozygous K3A, even though the heterozygous already has clear “Minute-like” phenotypes (Fig3&4 vs Fig 5 and text page 12). Either they need to perform a better quantification, or they need to discuss how this could be. I suggest that the authors compare with at least one other known Minute mutant which would help to understand what could be expected and what is the level of sensitivity of the tests they have used to measure translational efficiency.

3) The conclusions regarding the potential role of uL11 as a transcriptional regulator are rather confusing when compared to the findings published by the same group.

Despite the fact that the Lysine 3 mutants do not interact anymore with Corto, almost none of the RPG and RiBis genes found to be deregulated previously (by uL11 over-expression) seem to be affected by these mutations. The authors hypothesize that the pool of free mutated uL11 available for extra- ribosomal functions in transcriptional regulation could be reduced. While technically difficult to verify such hypothesis, the authors should check whether these mutants are still bound to the chromatin and to which extent compared to WT uL11 (uL11 antibodies are available).

4) K3Y is an interesting mutant as it does not seem to lose its translational activity and could constitute a good candidate to decipher the transcriptional role of uL11. However, I feel the transcriptomic analyses shown here weaken the paper rather than strengthen it. It adds observations without clear direction appear preliminary and are presented in a slightly confusing way. My suggestion would be to refocus that part on the clear result here: uL11 K3 mutants have hardly any transcriptional effects, and are different from corto mutations. Unlike what was observed for the over-expressed proteins, no clear changes were observed, in particular to Ribosomal protein genes.

Regarding the exploitation of the transcriptomic data I have a few comments that highlight the impression the data is preliminary.

In Supplemental Table 2: I do not understand the numbers presented and how the number of aligned reads can be bigger than the number of total reads for some samples? Similarly how can the number of unmapped reads be bigger than the number of total reads?

In Supplemental Table 3, I do not understand what the blue highlight is for?

In Supplemental Table 5, what would be the model compatible with the observation that the Mad sites are found in the vicinity of both up and down regulated genes in roughly equal proportions? Is that really biologically informative?

I feel these extra analyses on the transcriptome are too preliminary, and would be better left out.

5) Finally, the discussion on the absence of transcriptional change in uL11K3A or uL11K3Y should be more direct and clearly discuss the models for the discrepancy between gain and loss of function, for instance by being open to the caveats of gain of function experiments. One interesting model that is not discussed, or not spelled out clearly enough, is that Corto could be a regulator of Ribosomal protein gene expression, ensuring that all proteins are present at correct stoichiometry. Contrary to the gain of function of uL11, in the case of uL11K3A or uL11K3Y mutations, the stoichiometry is not affected, hence no transcriptional changes. However, going with that model, if other Ribosomal protein were now out of stoichiometry (Minute mutation), one would expect that the extra uL11 would accumulate, bind Corto, and repress the expression of other Ribosomal protein genes to restore balance. If uL11 is critical here for this Corto function, other Minute mutations would not lead to Ribosomal protein gene repression in the context of the uL11 K3A or uL11 K3Y mutants as they would be incapable of binding and enhancing Corto repressive action. This model could reconcile the gain and loss of function observations and should be testable with a recombinant between uL11K3Y (fully viable mutant) and another “Minute” gene mutant on the 2nd chromosome. This model or any other that could explain the discrepancies with the previous published work of the same team should be discussed.

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Aug 18;17(8):e0273198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273198.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Jul 2022

RESPONSE TO THE EDITOR

1 - I generally agree with the comments this reviewer has made and would ask you to address them. However, in point (1) they state "I would like however to see a second independent K3A line assessed on the major phenotypes (for instance developmental delay and Minute bristles) to rule out genetic background issues (especially since K3Y, or the other double substitutions do not give the same phenotype)". I agree that ruling out genetic background issues is important, however, if no second independent K3A line is available, this could be done by recombining the K3A mutation in to alternative genetic backgrounds using using flanking genetic markers.

Answer: Two other independent K3A lines, uL11K3A-6 and uL11K3A-12 were obtained (see Supplementary Figure 3) that exhibit the same phenotypes than the uL11K3A-43 line presented in the main text. To illustrate this point, we added pictures showing Minute bristles and the analysis of developmental time of the uL11K3A-12 mutant (new Figure: Supplementary Figure 4).

2 - The sentence (final paragraph of the introduction) "We describe here the uL11K3A and uL11K3Y mutants in which the lysine 3 codon of uL11 is replaced by a non-methylable alanine and a tyrosine codon, respectively." is very difficult to follow and should be re-written along the lines of: "In this study we have replaced the lysine 3 codon of uL11 with codons for amino acids that are not subject to methylation; alanine (uL11K3A) and tyrosine (uL11K3Y)."

Answer: The sentence has been replaced (see lines 113 to 115 on the manuscript with visible corrections).

3 - Results, line 2, first paragraph:

"uL11 is located within a cluster of highly transcribed genes, many of which are also essential (eIF5A, RpL39/eL39, yki...)" - please rewrite as "uL11 is located within a cluster of highly transcribed genes, many of which are also essential (including eIF5A, RpL39/eL39 and yki)."

Answer: The sentence has been replaced (see lines 342 and 343 on the manuscript with visible corrections).

4 - Please include a reference describing the "single step CRISPR/Cas9 mediated HDR using a single-stranded oligodeoxynucleotide donor template (ssODN)" that you based your experimental strategy on at the end of the first paragraph of the Results.

Answer: The following reference has been added (reference 23, line 350 on the manuscript with visible corrections):

Gratz, Scott J., Alexander M. Cummings, Jennifer N. Nguyen, Danielle C. Hamm, Laura K. Donohue, Melissa M. Harrison, Jill Wildonger, and Kate M. O’Connor-Giles. (2013) Genome Engineering of Drosophila with the CRISPR RNA-Guided Cas9 Nuclease.’ Genetics 194: 1029–35. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.113.152710.

5 - With respect to the publication criteria, I am happy to confirm that in my opinion, the paper presents the results of original research that has not been reported elsewhere, the experiments, statistics, and other analyses are generally performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail, the article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English, the research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity and that article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability. Generally the conclusions are appropriate, however, there is some scope to make the conclusions from the RNA-seq studies clearer and to propose alternative models to explain the data.

Answer: We rewrote the discussion about RNA-seq as suggested by the reviewer (see lines 690 to 706 on the manuscript with visible corrections).

JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS

2. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

Answer: This has been done

“FP: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Sorbonne University, Fondation ARC grant (PJA20171206407)

HG: Doctoral fellowship from the MESRI and Fondation ARC (ARCDOC42020020001381)

JD: Doctoral fellowship from the MESRI and Fondation pour la Recherche médicale (FDT20160435164)

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Answer: We agree with this funding statement.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

We did not observe any lethality during the pupal life for all genotypes (data not shown).

Answer: The phrase has been removed (line 406 on the manuscript with visible corrections).

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Answer: This has been done.

5. In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions

Answer: The file S1_raw_images.pdf contains all the raw images.

6. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01878354/file/2017PA066342.pdf

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Answer: This is the PhD thesis manuscript of the co-first author Jérôme Deraze. The reference has been added in the text (see reference 34).

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Answer: This has been done.

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #1

In this manuscript, Grunchec et al. report for the first time the generation and characterization of two new mutant lines for the ribosomal protein uL11/ Rpl12. This factor located at the basis of the ribosome P-Stalk plays an essential role in translation efficiency. A previous work from the same group demonstrated that uL11 displays extra-ribosomal activities and is able to bind chromatin and enhance the transcription of others Ribosomal Protein Genes (RPGs) and Ribosomal Biogenesis genes (RiBis) when over-expressed. Moreover, they found that uL11 is trimethylated on lysine 3 allowing its interaction with the chromodomain of the Enhancer of Polycomb and Trithorax Corto. These findings let the authors postulate that the transcriptional activity of uL11 is controlled by this Lysine 3 methylation. To test this hypothesis, they generated in the present study, point mutations of this amino acid using a CRISPR/Cas9 strategy. They obtained several mutant lines and focused their work on 2 mutations, namely K3A (lysine to alanine) and K3Y (lysine to tyrosine).

The first part of the manuscript describes in great details the making and the validation of the mutants. The experiments are well designed and perfectly controlled, and show clearly that the lines obtained carry the right mutations.

The second part focuses on the phenotypic characterization of these two mutants. Both are found to have lost their ability to interact with Corto. Interestingly, the K3A lines behaves as a typical Minute mutant. Surprisingly, K3Y does not display such phenotype.

In order to explain this discrepancy, they next ask whether these mutations impact on the translational and transcriptional activities of uL11. They show that both are well associated with the ribosome. However, while K3A mutant display an alteration of the yield of translation, K3Y behaves as Wild Type.

Finally, the author performed a transcriptomic analysis from third instar wing discs of Corto loss of function mutants and both uL11 Lysine 3 mutants. Cross comparison of RNA expression profiles show that very few deregulated genes were shared between the 3 conditions.

Overall, the experiments performed in this manuscript are thoughtful and well implemented. Before I can fully support publication, there are just a few key experiments I would like to see to back the claims of the authors, or a few points that need to be rephrased or discussed.

1) The results obtained in the mutant validation and the phenotypic description part of the manuscript are convincing and very detailed. I would like however to see a second independent K3A line assessed on the major phenotypes (for instance developmental delay and Minute bristles) to rule out genetic background issues (especially since K3Y, or the other double substitutions do not give the same phenotype).

Answer: Two others independent K3A line, uL11K3A-6 and uL11K3A-12 had been obtained (see Supplementary Figure 3). We added pictures showing Minute bristles and the analysis of developmental time of uL11K3A-12 that shows the same phenotype than the uL11K3A-43 mutant presented in the main text (see new Figure: Supplementary Figure 4).

2) The K3A mutants display a clear translational defect (Minute phenotype and lower translation rate). The K3A is clearly dominant in all assays performed by the authors, and it is clearly stated as such in the text. However, how can the authors explain that they did not see any change in translation in the heterozygous K3A/uL11 but only in the homozygous K3A, even though the heterozygous already has clear “Minute-like” phenotypes (Fig3&4 vs Fig 5 and text page 12). Either they need to perform a better quantification, or they need to discuss how this could be. I suggest that the authors compare with at least one other known Minute mutant which would help to understand what could be expected and what is the level of sensitivity of the tests they have used to measure translational efficiency.

Answer: Indeed, we did not observe any change in global translation of heterozygous uL11K3A/+ larvae although we did observe Minute phenotypes (developmental delay, shorter bristles etc.). On the one hand, the phenotypes of uL11K3A/ uL11+ flies are not as severe as those of uL11K3A/ uL11K3A, and a low decrease in global translation might be undetectable in our assays. On the other hand, we measured the translational rate in total larvae and it is known that the amount of protein synthesis varies depending on the tissue. Hence, some tissues might be more sensitive to RPG reduction than others. For example, in mouse Rpl24Bst/+ haematopoietic cells, measure of protein synthesis based on in vivo OP-Puro incorporation shows that it is highly dependent on the cell type, being decreased in granulocyte-macrophage progenitors whereas unchanged in most other progenitors (Signer, 2004). In Drosophila, many studies have been done by in vivo incorporation of OP-puro in wing imaginal discs of third instar larvae in a context of cell competition - clones of Rp-/+ cells in a Rp+/+ genetic background (Ji, 2019; Kiparaki, 2021). These are proliferating cells that might need more protein synthesis than polyploid tissues that are in the majority in larvae. These argues were added in the manuscript (see lines 475 to 484 in the manuscript with visible corrections).

3) The conclusions regarding the potential role of uL11 as a transcriptional regulator are rather confusing when compared to the findings published by the same group.

Despite the fact that the Lysine 3 mutants do not interact anymore with Corto, almost none of the RPG and RiBis genes found to be deregulated previously (by uL11 over-expression) seem to be affected by these mutations. The authors hypothesize that the pool of free mutated uL11 available for extra- ribosomal functions in transcriptional regulation could be reduced. While technically difficult to verify such hypothesis, the authors should check whether these mutants are still bound to the chromatin and to which extent compared to WT uL11 (uL11 antibodies are available).

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this comment and we agree that it was crucial to test the binding of the mutant proteins to chromatin. Unfortunately, our uL11 antibodies were not immunoprecipitating. We thus performed Histone Association Assays as described by Ricke and Bielinsky [Biol. Proced. Online 2005; 7(1): 60-69. doi:10.1251/bpo106]. We extracted chromatin from our permanently S2 cell lines expressing either uL11-HA, uL11K3A-HA or uL11K3Y-HA and purified it by immunoprecipitation with an anti-Histone 3 antibody. We checked that Histone H2B co-immunoprecipitated with H3, showing that we successfully prepared chromatin. We found that all three uL11 proteins, i.e. not only uL11 wild-type, but also uL11K3A and uL1K3Y, were present on chromatin with no detectable difference between them in the amount of associated protein at this scale. This suggests that the mutated proteins might still have the ability to regulate transcription. We added these new results in the manuscript (see text lines 538 to 544 in the manuscript with visible corrections and the new figure 7).

4) K3Y is an interesting mutant as it does not seem to lose its translational activity and could constitute a good candidate to decipher the transcriptional role of uL11. However, I feel the transcriptomic analyses shown here weaken the paper rather than strengthen it. It adds observations without clear direction appear preliminary and are presented in a slightly confusing way. My suggestion would be to refocus that part on the clear result here: uL11 K3 mutants have hardly any transcriptional effects, and are different from corto mutations. Unlike what was observed for the over-expressed proteins, no clear changes were observed, in particular to Ribosomal protein genes.

Regarding the exploitation of the transcriptomic data I have a few comments that highlight the impression the data is preliminary.

In Supplemental Table 2: I do not understand the numbers presented and how the number of aligned reads can be bigger than the number of total reads for some samples? Similarly how can the number of unmapped reads be bigger than the number of total reads?

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this remark and we apologize for this mistake. A table with the right numbers is now presented (see Sup Table 2).

In Supplemental Table 3, I do not understand what the blue highlight is for?

Answer: As indicated in the legend of Sup Table 3, these genes are those which are up-regulated in other RPG mutants (described in references 38 and 39).

In Supplemental Table 5, what would be the model compatible with the observation that the Mad sites are found in the vicinity of both up and down regulated genes in roughly equal proportions? Is that really biologically informative?

I feel these extra analyses on the transcriptome are too preliminary, and would be better left out.

Answer: We understand the reviewer's point of view and we have eliminated this part. (see linesd 603 to 614 and 707 to 717 of the manuscript with visible corrections).

5) Finally, the discussion on the absence of transcriptional change in uL11K3A or uL11K3Y should be more direct and clearly discuss the models for the discrepancy between gain and loss of function, for instance by being open to the caveats of gain of function experiments.

One interesting model that is not discussed, or not spelled out clearly enough, is that Corto could be a regulator of Ribosomal protein gene expression, ensuring that all proteins are present at correct stoichiometry. Contrary to the gain of function of uL11, in the case of uL11K3A or uL11K3Y mutations, the stoichiometry is not affected, hence no transcriptional changes. However, going with that model, if other Ribosomal protein were now out of stoichiometry (Minute mutation), one would expect that the extra uL11 would accumulate, bind Corto, and repress the expression of other Ribosomal protein genes to restore balance.

If uL11 is critical here for this Corto function, other Minute mutations would not lead to Ribosomal protein gene repression in the context of the uL11 K3A or uL11 K3Y mutants as they would be incapable of binding and enhancing Corto repressive action.

This model could reconcile the gain and loss of function observations and should be testable with a recombinant between uL11K3Y (fully viable mutant) and another “Minute” gene mutant on the 2nd chromosome. This model or any other that could explain the discrepancies with the previous published work of the same team should be discussed.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these remarks. We have modified the discussion to take them into account. In particular, we have focused on the fact that few genes are deregulated in the uL11K3Y mutant and that the interaction between Corto and uL11 could allow to fine-tune RPGs in order to ensure the stoichiometry of ribosomal proteins (see lines 690 to 706 of the manuscript with visible corrections).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Barbara Jennings

4 Aug 2022

Single amino-acid mutation in a Drosophila melanogaster ribosomal protein: an insight in uL11 transcriptional activity

PONE-D-22-02062R1

Dear Dr. Peronnet,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Barbara Jennings

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Barbara Jennings

9 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-02062R1

Single amino-acid mutation in a Drosophila melanogaster ribosomal protein: an insight in uL11 transcriptional activity

Dear Dr. Peronnet:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Barbara Jennings

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Specificity of the anti-uL11K3me3 antibody.

    0.2 (left) and 0.05 μg (right) of each peptide were deposited on a nitrocellulose membrane. Membranes were then incubated with the indicated primary antibodies. Secondary antibodies were as described in Materials and Methods. Peptides: unmethylated uL11, uL11K10me3, uL11K3A, uL11K3me2, and uL11K3me3 peptides were synthesized at the proteomic platform of the Institute of Biology Paris Seine; H3K4me3 and H3K9me3 peptides were from Diagenode, C16000003 and C160000056, respectively. Antibodies: PI: rabbit preimmun serum; α-uL11: 1/14000, described in Materials and Methods; α-uL11K3me3: 1/10000, described in Materials and Methods; α-H3K4me3: 1/1000, Diagenode C15310003; α-H3K9me3: 1/1000, Diagenode C15100146. Secondary antibodies: 1/10000.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Molecular screening for the uL11K3A allele.

    A–Rationale for discriminative PCR. Purple bases correspond to the target codon. Red bases stand for locked nucleic acids (LNA). The LNAWT primer ended with the lysine AAA codon of the wild-type uL11 gene whereas the LNAK3A primer ended with the alanine GCC codon corresponding to the desired mutation. B–qPCRs were performed with the LNAK3A primer matching the uL11K3A allele. Red curve: plasmid carrying the uL11K3A allele as positive control. Black curve: genomic DNA from a wild-type fly. Blue curves: pools of up to 5 different genomic DNAs from candidate G1 flies considered to be positive. Green curves: pools of up to 5 different genomic DNAs from candidate G1 flies considered to be negative. C–The same qPCRs were performed on individual genomic DNAs from the pools that were previously found to be positive for the uL11K3A allele. Several individuals wearing the mutation were thus identified (blue curves). D–High Resolution Melting Analysis (HMRA) of uL11 mutants. Melting profile of the uL11 amplicons from genomic DNAs of G1 flies. Melting peaks flatter and broader than the reference (black) revealed the presence of two different amplicons, indicating that the tested DNA contained a mutation at the uL11 locus. Melting curves were normalized according to the method described by [27]. RFU: Relative Fluorescence Unit.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Sequence of the uL11 alleles of G0 flies.

    Founder G0 flies were named after their gender (M, male; F, female) and the order of their emergence. Each allele was recovered in several descendants of the same founders. The uL11K3A and uL11ΔK3 alleles were found in the progeny of three and two different founders, respectively. Substitution alleles were named to reflect the amino acid change in the uL11 protein, following the amino acid one letter code. The bottom two alleles were named after the reading frameshift they introduce in the uL11 gene. The wild-type uL11 sequence is provided as reference. The start and the lysine 3 codons of uL11 are highlighted in grey. Mutants F-4 and F+2 introduce a +2 reading frame shift that puts the uL11 CDS in frame with an ATG codon located in the 5’UTR. A protein with a 24 amino acid extension might then be produced.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Analysis of the uL11K3A-12 mutant.

    A—From left to right: thorax of a wild-type female, a uL11K3A-12/uL11+ heterozygous female, and a uL11K3A-12/uL11K3A-12 homozygous female. Anterior and posterior scutellar bristles are colorized. B–Developmental time of the uL11K3A-12 mutant as compared to uL11K3A-43—the mutant presented in the main text. The percentage of flies emerged from day 8 to 15 is shown. The total number of flies emerged is indicated in the legend. Solid lines: heterozygous flies; dotted line: homozygous flies; blue: uL11+, burgundy: uL11K3-43, pink: uL11K3A-12.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Analysis of bristles and wings in female uL11 mutants.

    A–Length of anterior scutellar bristles of wild-type females (blue; n = 54), uL11K3A/uL11+ (burgundy, n = 33) and uL11K3Y/uL11K3Y (orange, n = 25). B–Length of posterior scutellar bristles of wild-type males (blue; n = 51), uL11K3A/uL11+ (burgundy, n = 36) and uL11K3Y/uL11K3Y (orange, n = 50). C–Wing size of uL11 wild-type females (blue; n = 29), uL11K3A/uL11+ (burgundy, n = 30) and uL11K3Y/uL11K3Y (orange, n = 25). t-tests: *** p-value < 0.001; ** p-value < 0.01; * p-value < 0.05; ns: non significant.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Oligonucleotides used in this study.

    In primers LNA-WT and LNA-K3A, uppercase nucleotides correspond to the LNA bases. In primers pho-sgRNA_F and pho-sgRNA_R, uppercase nucleotides correspond to the floating sequences used for cloning. The bold guanosine was introduced to increase efficiency of the U6 promoter. In the ssODN, the complementary ATG and alanine codon sequences are bold and in uppercases, the PAM sequence corresponding to the single guide RNA is in bold.

    (PDF)

    S2 Table. RNA-seq of wing imaginal discs (GEO accession number GSE181926).

    (PDF)

    S3 Table. Genes deregulated in at least one of the three genotypes (cortoL1 /corto420, uL11K3A, uL11K3Y).

    Green: Up-regulated genes, log2 fold-change > 0.5, adjusted p-value < 5.E-02. Orange: Down-regulated genes, log2 fold-change < -0.5, adjusted p-value < 5.E-02. Blue: Genes up-regulated in other RPG mutants [35, 36].

    (PDF)

    S4 Table. Ontology of genes deregulated in cortoL1/corto420 and uL11K3A mutants.

    CC: Cellular Component; BP: Biological Process; MF: Molecular Function.

    (PDF)

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The RNA-Seq gene expression data and raw fastq files are available at the GEO repository under accession number GSE181926 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE181926).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES